Hi All,
Can someone please tell what is the conclusion of the following argument:
1. The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.......or
2. If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.
===============================================
The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network. Most of the network was put in place at a time when the city was much smaller in both area and population. The subway system is outdated and understaffed. The buses rarely run on schedule and their routes are inconvenient. If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is an explanation of a current state of affairs; the second is a prediction based on that state of affairs.
B. The first is a statement of fact in opposition to the author's conclusion; the second is that conclusion.
C. The first emphasizes an existing problem; the second offers a proposal to solve that problem.
D. The first is information the author suggests has been overlooked in the situation at hand; the second describes that situation.
E. The first is a justification of an impending problem; the second describes the consequences of that problem.
OA = A
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Bold Face - City Transportation
This topic has expert replies
-
goelmohit2002
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1799
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
- Thanked: 36 times
- Followed by:2 members
It is A. Although it is not a very good answer, but it is the best among all the choices. It is not a very good answer as it suggests that the prediction in the second bold statement is based on the current state of affairs, which according to statement 1 is that the network was put in place at a very older time. I guess the prediction is based on rather that the subway system is outdated and the buses does not run on schedule.
The conclusion is that the city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.
The conclusion is that the city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.
Last edited by acenikk on Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
goelmohit2002
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1799
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
- Thanked: 36 times
- Followed by:2 members
Thanks. I am also confused with this.acenikk wrote:The conclusion is that the city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.
The OE says otherwise.....it says that...the conclusion is #2...i.e.
"If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized. "
Can someone please tell why it is not #1 but #2......
please check the boldfaced above..goelmohit2002 wrote:Thanks. I am also confused with this.acenikk wrote:The conclusion is that the city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.
The OE says otherwise.....it says that...the conclusion is #2...i.e.
"If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized. "
"As a result" indicates the definite conclusion....
first statement is not the main conclusion of the stimuli....
-
goelmohit2002
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1799
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
- Thanked: 36 times
- Followed by:2 members
But IMO isn't "should" in is equally emphasing the point that author make.....shouldn't this be the "what" author want to communicate...ketkoag wrote: please check the boldfaced above..
"As a result" indicates the definite conclusion....
first statement is not the main conclusion of the stimuli....
"The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network. ".....
What = City should invest more....
Why = Because network is outdated and if not updated, then companies will move.
Please tell what is the flaw in the above ?
-
goelmohit2002
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1799
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
- Thanked: 36 times
- Followed by:2 members
I was also confused with the same....but after reading the OE I found that impending = likely to happen in future....but this is not a future problem but the current problem....so wrong....niraj_a wrote:why not E guys? I didn't think that the bold statement 1 was current state of affairs since it talks about what was done in the past.
i'm mistaken somehow.
OE also said that(which I am not 100% convinced).....that in E.....it is possible consequences....not consequences.... so E is wrong....not sure do we have to see so much minutely
Another reason that OE gave for kicking out E = FBF = justification is wrong.....I am not able to understand how using justification is wrong.....can someone please explain?
-
niraj_a
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:59 am
- Location: USA
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:1 members
ah ok, that makes sense now. subtle yeah. is this LSAT?goelmohit2002 wrote:I was also confused with the same....but after reading the OE I found that impending = likely to happen in future....but this is not a future problem but the current problem....so wrong....niraj_a wrote:why not E guys? I didn't think that the bold statement 1 was current state of affairs since it talks about what was done in the past.
i'm mistaken somehow.
OE also said that(which I am not 100% convinced).....that in E.....it is possible consequences....not consequences.... so E is wrong....not sure do we have to see so much minutely
Another reason that OE gave for kicking out E = FBF = justification is wrong.....I am not able to understand how using justification is wrong.....can someone please explain?
-
goelmohit2002
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1799
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
- Thanked: 36 times
- Followed by:2 members
This is from Manhattan....but can you please help me understand the other reasons that OE gave to kick out E...niraj_a wrote:ah ok, that makes sense now. subtle yeah. is this LSAT?goelmohit2002 wrote:I was also confused with the same....but after reading the OE I found that impending = likely to happen in future....but this is not a future problem but the current problem....so wrong....niraj_a wrote:why not E guys? I didn't think that the bold statement 1 was current state of affairs since it talks about what was done in the past.
i'm mistaken somehow.
OE also said that(which I am not 100% convinced).....that in E.....it is possible consequences....not consequences.... so E is wrong....not sure do we have to see so much minutely
Another reason that OE gave for kicking out E = FBF = justification is wrong.....I am not able to understand how using justification is wrong.....can someone please explain?
Also please tell what do you think is the author's conclusion....since I am not 100% convinced by what OE say as conclusion.
I myself kick out choice E because I think E can not be consequense. It is a condition sentence in which the event has not happened yet.goelmohit2002 wrote: Also please tell what do you think is the author's conclusion....since I am not 100% convinced by what OE say as conclusion.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Stacey Koprince
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2228
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
- Thanked: 639 times
- Followed by:694 members
- GMAT Score:780
Received a PM asking me to respond.
1) gov't should invest funds in transport network
2) network is really old, when city was smaller
3) subway outdated
4) buses bad
5) if no changes are made, then companies will move away, and the city will go downhill
I think you could argue that statements 1 and 5 are both conclusions: one's about what we "should" do and the other is about what will happen if we don't do what we "should" do. You'll notice that the answer doesn't change either way.
I agree with acenikk that the correct answer is not worded as well as it should be.
The problem with E is the first half of the answer: "justification of an impending problem." What is described in the first boldface is not an "impending" problem - the actions have already occurred. It is a problem now, because the city has grown, but the statement itself does not reflect an "impending (coming, future) problem."
Also "justification" means to try to prove or show that something is correct. The statement by itself is not trying to prove something correct. It's just stating a fact. (other parts of the text are trying to justify, yes, but this one is just a fact, and this part of the answer is supposed to refer ONLY to the first boldface.)
Put the two together: justification of an impending problem. Trying to show that an impending problem is correct. The whole argument is trying to justify a solution to an existing problem, yes. But the first boldface is not trying to justify a future problem.
1) gov't should invest funds in transport network
2) network is really old, when city was smaller
3) subway outdated
4) buses bad
5) if no changes are made, then companies will move away, and the city will go downhill
I think you could argue that statements 1 and 5 are both conclusions: one's about what we "should" do and the other is about what will happen if we don't do what we "should" do. You'll notice that the answer doesn't change either way.
I agree with acenikk that the correct answer is not worded as well as it should be.
The problem with E is the first half of the answer: "justification of an impending problem." What is described in the first boldface is not an "impending" problem - the actions have already occurred. It is a problem now, because the city has grown, but the statement itself does not reflect an "impending (coming, future) problem."
Also "justification" means to try to prove or show that something is correct. The statement by itself is not trying to prove something correct. It's just stating a fact. (other parts of the text are trying to justify, yes, but this one is just a fact, and this part of the answer is supposed to refer ONLY to the first boldface.)
Put the two together: justification of an impending problem. Trying to show that an impending problem is correct. The whole argument is trying to justify a solution to an existing problem, yes. But the first boldface is not trying to justify a future problem.
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!
Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT
Contributor to Beat The GMAT!
Learn more about me
Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT
Contributor to Beat The GMAT!
Learn more about me
